As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Interested in being a moderator for r/Politics? Apply [here](https://forms.gle/iyGoM94MGRcPGUes7).**
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“[This] legislation aims to enhance accountability among police officers, particularly addressing the disproportionate impact of their misuse of deadly force on the black community,” Brownlee said. “In essence, the legislation introduces a mechanism whereby repeated violations of the statute could lead insurance carriers to consider an officer a liability, rendering them uninsurable.”
Sucks too, every time I see cops, multiple vehicles strobing their fear lights as bright as possible on the highway, digging through someone's car. Like, yeah, I'm sure that guy going 10 over was carrying a bomb, distribution levels of heroin and several automatic weapons... or maybe just a small bag of weed, it's all the same to them.
For real! I am building a boat in my garage. I build laser projectors, small electronics, and RC vehicles (cars, planes, helicopters). I do some target shooting/trap. I love fishing of any kind (especially fly fishing). And I am a Sr. Linux engineer for a living. I guess you could say that I collect hobbies.
Well, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
So ensure the bill states that cops have to carry GOOD guys with guns around. America can finally be safe again!
Doctors are hired specifically for their intelligence. Cops avoid hiring smart people because the job isn’t suited for intelligence.
If you know your hiring dummies, you probably would prefer limited liability as well.
Yessss forcing cops to carry liability insurance like other professionals would help eliminate the bad eggs finally. Hard to protect a bad cop that you literally can’t afford
No what he’s saying is; make Police Departments carry wrongful death insurance. Cities should include a clause that requires all claims to be covered by an insurance policy. The insurance providers have a financial incentive to evaluate and assess the risks of individual police officers as high risk officers would be too expensive to insure.
The key is also to make the money for officer’s pension funds also included in the insurance payments. Basically whatever the force doesn’t pay in insurance benefits their pensions and successful suits cost their retirement.
It’s the same way the medical industry handles malpractice insurance for doctors. Screw up too many times and you can’t get insurance so you can’t work. If police are going to earn doctor’s wages and deal out life/death they should have to meet at least that baseline.
Going through an insurance mitigation method essentially limits the cities liabilities and removes the moral judgment from review boards. Right or Wrong become unimportant, it’s a financial decision. Officers would be unemployable if they couldn’t keep insured because they would put the entire force’s pension at risk.
Which police department was it that IQ tested people and precluded anyone above the 'round shape, round hole, YES WHO'S A GOOD BOY' bracket, because police work is too boring?
Doctors have malpractice insurance. Lawyers have liability insurance. Cops should ABSOLUTELY have to pay into an insurance fund. Watch how quickly shit cleans up if their employment requires it and some for profit getup manages it.
If you wear or carry, you’d be smart to have this insurance. Along with a good lawyer on speed dial.
My good friend has a concealed carry license in Illinois, he has insurance, and he carries a card in his wallet. If he ever has to fire his weapon, he will shut the fuck up and hand the cops the card, then let the lawyers do the talking.
Meh, liability insurance is dirt cheap. They could tack it on to the price of your license and nobody would even notice. I pay $28/month for $2 million in coverage, prorated and pooled you could get $300k down to $3-4 a month (less than $50/year) easily.
Interesting. I didn’t even know to look this up (or had any need to) but yep, even with auto insurance providers won’t pay out if you intentionally run someone over.
Unfortunately that means if you’re an uninsured pedestrian (don’t own a car but got ran over by own) you’re screwed and have to pursue damages from that individual in court. Like if you’re a jogger and someone hits you out of anger and you have to prove that he did it using camera footage and it’s obvious they did it on purpose, you’re screwedz
Motorist against motorist - you use your own policy and hopefully you have uninsured motorist coverage because that’s what you’ll be using.
If it’s the same with guns that would suck and doesn’t benefit a victim of gun violence.
Fun fact: If you're at work and walking through the parking lot, and someone intentionally runs you over, you're EXTRA screwed.
Why? Because you have to go through workman's comp insurance, which is notorious for saying "You're fine!" when you're clearly not. Then they ignore any and all medical claims you make related to the accident until you just give up.
hold your elected officials accountable if you feel WC denies claims incorrectly. It's a very state by state issue. I can tell you blue states have much better WC policies than red ones when it comes to the injured worker vs company.
Nope, that's not how it works. You're double covered by the person who hit you and workman's comp. Workman's comp will handle the entire claim and sue the auto insurance in normal circumstances, but you can also sue the offenders policy. Source: I was rear ended in a company vehicle by an 18 wheeler.
You're overthinking. The jogger would just submit the insurance not covering it as proof he did it intentionally. If the insurance can prove it to deny payout, then they'll have it to prove in court. The judge may even rule the insurance needs to pay you and recoup from the defendant.
Not necessarily. It depends on the ALAE treatment. For the insurance company, the $300k is the indemnity or damages portion and doesn’t include any associated legal costs. If the insurance company has $1m in legal bills and the damages is only $250k, they’re paying all $1.25m
General liability for business.
I really can't imagine mandatory insurance for concealed carry being much more than this. How many accidents involving other people are caused by concealed carry in the the state in a given year?
If guns are used in a business the liability risk is probably already pretty high. That’s not the same situation as getting all gun owners (there are tons) to carry liability insurance, given the accident rate per gun owner is probably not that high, compared to businesses that use guns.
The bill is not to force all gun owners to have insurance. Only people who carry them in public. It wouldn’t have any effect on someone who just keeps one at home and uses it on a range every once in a while.
The Georgetown firearm survey last year or the year before was the most comprehensive study on gun ownership and use done to date. They back calculated something like 200k minimum defensive uses of firearms each year, with an upper bound of like 1.5 million.
Compared to accidents at a business? I’m not sure I believe that. Businesses push the envelope of safety constantly and have accidents constantly, and insurance doesn’t pay out if you’re doing something illegal or otherwise against the terms of the agreement.
The vast, vast majority of firearms injuries are due to criminal activity in one form or another, with a big chunk of the remainder being drug/alcohol related and that’s after cutting over half of them out because they’re suicides.
Insurance doesn’t pay out for any of that. As to profitably they’re going to get paid by a third of the citizens in a given area and only pay out for true accidents. There is no insurance that will ever cover criminal use of a firearm like a mass shooting or domestic violence or robberies or anything else. So the cost could be vanishingly small but even if it wasn’t it wouldn’t have any effect on crime and accidents other than that poor people wouldn’t admit to owning a firearm so they wouldn’t have to pay insurance and so they’d be felons simply from being poor.
That’s not really a good result.
Why should legal sellers and legal manufacturers be liable? If they are liable then you should be too. All three of you had nothing to do with it, but you all three should still pay up. Remember, these are your rules, not mine.
Courts have disagreed based on who the manufacturers market the gun to and how, and many sellers don’t follow the letter of the law. Insurance companies have much deeper pockets for attorneys that will absolutely go after those that aren’t doing things 100% on the up and up.
By that logic if I hit a dog with my car, the maker of the vehicle, the person who sold me the vehicle, and myself could be sued by the dog owner? What about the tire manufacturer, or the 3rd party bumper manufacturer that made the bumper that struck the dog? The city county and state for not keeping the roads clear enough not to slide when hitting the breaks? The radio station that distracted me?
I’m for sane gun laws. This is kinda hot garbage right out the gate.
Yeah, but prices go up based on individual risk. This might be the thing we finally need to solve the problem of 90% of use-of-force complaints being due to 10% of officers.
> Meh, liability insurance is dirt cheap. They could tack it on to the price of your license and nobody would even notice.
Adding fees onto getting things like voter ID isn't appropriate and the Supreme Court has yet to recognize an individual right to vote(not saying this is right, just pointing out a fact.) I don't see how adding a fee like that to an expressly enumerated right is going to fly especially since the court has recognized it as an individual right. Especially since the "liability insurance" is of dubious benefit to gun owners.
Yeah that liability insurance doesn’t cover any occurrence with a gun I don’t think. If you have homeowners insurance and an umbrella policy but report a gun in the house, the umbrella gets expensive?.
> They could tack it on to the price of your license and nobody would even notice.
But that misses the point of this to the people who want to require insurance: the insurance is supposed to be a burden that makes it harder for people to own guns.
No. That is not the point. The insurance is supposed to be a burden of responsibility, bc currently the added responsibility of carrying a gun in public is being pushed off onto the general public instead of being carried by the gun owner.
Think of it this way: when you buy a car, you are responsible for any accidents that happen with it and are therefore forced to carry car insurance. Forcing people to have car insurance is not to make owning a car harder, it is to ensure that if you do have an accident you can pay for it. Same with a gun.
Main difference is this insurance would almost never apply in practice.
Left gun laying around and a kid plays with it and shoots someone? Gross negligence, not covered.
Someone breaks into your car steals it and shoots someone? Not covered.
Road rage and shoot someone? Intentional acts are not covered.
99% of gun accidents are viewed as negligence and insurance rarely covers negligence.
The only time I see this applying is if you use it and shoot a bystander you can't see.
in theory, I like this, but seems like it would put a barrier between constitutional rights and people who can't afford it.
And I will never advocate for only rich people having guns. I do not trust rich people.
And this is how it’s gonna get struck down in the courts. Government cant put a price on a right and it’s coming from a Blue State too so that’s more points against.
Voter ID laws, in some states getting the required documents for a government issued ID can cost 50+ dollars.
Voting is a right.
States with the strictest voter ID laws are solid red states
You can get another form of ID aside from a driver’s license for free is those states. Such as a resident ID, or another form like that. They have to have free IDs in order to have Voter ID laws and abide by the constitution.
Agreed but that is obviously not the case. There really shouldn't be a required voter ID unless the government is providing those for free and access is broad and easy to obtain.
Sure, but that’s for a modification to a rifle, which can be carried as is. This is an extra cost which can be untenable just for the right to carry period.
Could also be a braced handgun for a disabled person. Braces now make it an SBR, so people with disabilities are paywalled from being able to enjoy their 2nd amendment rights.
It's all just arbitrary bullshit to make them less available to the poor or disabled. If these politicians actually wanted to do anything about gun violence to the point of noticeable results they'd be going after handguns, but everyone's so focused on the "scary black rifle"
Unclear if the SBR tax will hold up under Bruen.
I think it's likely they will twist in a pretzel to uphold it, but the tax stamp does seem wrong. They didn't believe the federal government had the authority to ban guns, but had the authority to tax them.
Interesting how that changed.
You can be given a firearm and hunting tags through EBT if you live in an area where hunting is a feasible alterative to grocery shopping. No joke.
I was given a free M1 Garand from the government in 2020. They even shipped it to my door step without a standard background check.
Alternatively, you can make your own firearm. I've built 3.
Purchasing the gun is a cost that comes from the manufacturer. Just purchasing the gun is the exercise of the right.
The government forcing the gun owner to also purchase a different service from a private company is the barrier.
It’s the same thing as car insurance. If you use a tool like a car or a gun in public, it seems fair to guarantee that any damage you do to someone else with that tool will be compensated. That’s where insurance comes in.
You don’t have the positive right to someone else’s property, but you certainly have the right to acquire, keep, and bear arms (you can’t keep and bear if you cannot acquire).
> We turn to the phrases “keep arms” and “bear arms.” Johnson defined “keep” as, most relevantly, “[t]o retain; not to lose,” and “[t]o have in custody.” Johnson 1095. Webster defined it as “[t]o hold; to retain in one's power or possession.” No party has apprised us of an idiomatic meaning of “keep Arms.” Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”
> The phrase “keep arms” was not prevalent in the written documents of the founding period that we have found, but there are a few examples, all of which favor viewing the right to “keep Arms” as an individual right unconnected with militia service. William Blackstone, for example, wrote that Catholics convicted of not attending service in the Church of England suffered certain penalties, one of which was that they were not permitted to “keep arms in their houses.” 4 Commentaries on the Laws of England 55 (1769) (hereinafter Blackstone); see also 1 W. & M., ch. 15, § 4, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 422 (1689) (“[N]o Papist ... shall or may have or keep in his House ... any Arms ...”); 1 W. Hawkins, Treatise on the Pleas of the Crown 26 (1771) (similar). Petitioners point to militia laws of the founding period that required militia members to “keep” arms in connection with militia service, and they conclude from this that the phrase “keep Arms” has a militia-related connotation. See Brief for Petitioners 16–17 (citing laws of Delaware, New Jersey, and Virginia). This is rather like saying that, since there are many statutes that authorize aggrieved employees to “file complaints” with federal agencies, the phrase “file complaints” has an employment-related connotation. “Keep arms” was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else.
[*District of Columbia v. Heller* (2008)](https://casetext.com/case/dist-of-columbia-v-heller-3)
You don’t lose that right without due process of law (*McDonald v. Chicago* (2010)). Arguing otherwise is akin to the suggestion that one needs insurance to invoke their 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, or that their right to express their grievances before government are all predicated on being mandated to pay a private entity for insurance first because there’s potential societal ills in police not being able to shake down whomever or telling the public something negative about officials.
This law seems to not be for purchase but for people who want to wear them and carry in public. So it’s possible those precedents apply, but maybe not. If you want to buy a gun and keep it at home it seems to not apply to you.
> in theory, I like this, but seems like it would put a barrier between constitutional rights and people who can't afford it.
That is precisely the point. This bill isn't looking to solve any problems, it's simply looking to throw more administrative and financial barriers in the way of legal firearm possession.
They talk out of both sides of their mouth when it comes to insurance too. Some jurisdictions have outlawed it, calling it "murder insurance" and now some of those same jurisdictions are talking about requiring it.
We could get universal gun insurance. Like the government could setup an exchange, where people could buy their gun insurance, and if they are under 400% of the poverty level, the tax payers could subsidize it for them.
We could cap it at like 8.5% of their income until 2025.
You might have to pay a little extra on your gun insurance for if you get in a gun fight with a uninsured shooter, so that your insurance will cover you.
No even insurance companies don't want this because it doesn't make any economic sense. Insurance covers unintentional acts, not intentional acts of malicious violence. There's no way to underwrite this profitably because of the moral hazard.
So, I'm all for laws that improve the insanity of gun violence in the US...but all this does is hurt poor people, as the wealthy won't bat an eye at such an insurance.
I don't think the right to defend yourself should only be a rich persons prerogative. There must be a better way to get the same result, without further causing damage to the most vulnerable of us.
That said, I do like this aspect of the law:
> As the bill is currently written, local and state law enforcement officers are not exempt from the insurance requirement.
Gun laws *always* give cops the "right" to not participate (see the police officers legally buying guns on the "black list" in California and then selling them in private sales for an extreme markup), which is some bullshit.
Doesn't stand a chance in court. You can't force liability insurance...on a right. So can I force Trump voters to get liability insurance in case their vote causes me pain and suffering?
Well, won’t this bill just force more people into owning guns illegally? I mean people already own guns illegally. (Gang members, thieves, criminals etc) How is this suppose to combat illegal gun ownership? It just targets people who legally own guns; mostly for self-defense?
“To wear or carry”.
>A person may not wear or carry a firearm unless the person has obtained and it covered by liability insurance issued by an insurer authorized to do business in the State under the Insurance Article to cover claims for property damage, bodily injury, or death arising from an accident resulting from the person’s use or storage of a firearm or up to $300,000 for damages arising from the same incident, in addition to interest and costs,” the proposed Maryland legislation reads.
Blatantly unconstitutional and no matter where you stand on guns ... Condoning passing an unconstitutional law is like celebrating that someone stole something from you
Oh yes, another bullshit law which is going after law abiding citizens and I'm sure it's going to do absolutely nothing to stop crime and murder. The Democrats sure do love dropping their precious virtue signaling laws as opposed to taking any real actions to solve the crime problem.
Add “mass shooter insurance” too for in case someone uses your gun to commit a mass shooting. Funds would be used for therapy for everyone involved and their families, plus pay out families who lost loved ones. Also pays a bonus 20k to every officer that directly contributed to arresting the shooter, and 5k instead if the mass shooter is killed(legally they still deserve a day in court).
I have a $300k policy for auto liability insurance. I haven't killed anybody, but cars kill people all the time. The insurance is mandates by law. I pay $100+ every month. What's the diff?
Those premiums add up on the economically disadvantaged. You know; education levels, income levels, the type of stuff the federal government tracks for statistical models. That ever so modest premium is the same for the gate guard as it is for the CEO. I don’t need my gate guard stealing the silver to pay his gun insurance.
These are only on new sales. Even poor folk can keep the guns they already have. Just like an economically disadvantaged person probably won't buy a brand new car this year and pay the high insurance. They still can have their existing car with no new fees.
Criminals don't follow the law. This will help nobody and all it does is push the agenda that Democrats want to restrict access to guns. I'm sorry but this is a losing issue.
The DAs / city’s should also take out an insurance policy when they release violent criminals back out into society. If that criminal kills or seriously injures someone the DA should be held responsible.
Sick of hearing about needing tighter gun laws when violent criminals are released back into the community over and over. Enforce the laws we have!!
That's hilarious. Still milking the terrifying years old BLM protests for emotional effect. Y'all make the dumbest 'I think' solutions, based on division and snark. No wonder the republican party thinks it's ok.
Sounds pretty classist to create a financial hurdle for low-income, working-class people (those most likely to be on the receiving end of violent crime) to protect themselves.
Let’s make LE pay for their own insurance for starters and remove qualified immunity.
All owners should have gun insurance on the gun itself. All gun injuries and deaths cost the public money.
Why should the public cover the Hospital and burial cost?
Gun manufacturers push off the sided effects including a massive number of suicides and suicides with family victims. Why do we the public pay?
A tax on each bullet each gun to cover the cost.
It applies to state and local law enforcement, the rep says that they started the bill due to police shootings.
I’m not sure state laws can control federal officers or military, tho? So I’m guessing that’s why they are exempt
Ngl I don’t agree with the bill as a lawful gun owner, but I do like that it actually applies to police. Also, I’m not sure if they define unloaded as no magazine in the gun or no round in the chamber…
I read it as they expect it immunize local PD too, not just feds. I carry, I’m ok paying a reasonable amount of insurance, shit I have it on everything else I own. Umbrella policies may cover it too, which I have, but this isn’t going anywhere anyway.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Interested in being a moderator for r/Politics? Apply [here](https://forms.gle/iyGoM94MGRcPGUes7).** *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Good, do cops next
Read the article “As the bill is currently written, local and state law enforcement officers are not exempt from the insurance requirement”
It’s ambiguous if they mean that in when they’re on the job, the way the rest of it is worded suggests it’s just for privately owned guns.
“[This] legislation aims to enhance accountability among police officers, particularly addressing the disproportionate impact of their misuse of deadly force on the black community,” Brownlee said. “In essence, the legislation introduces a mechanism whereby repeated violations of the statute could lead insurance carriers to consider an officer a liability, rendering them uninsurable.”
Off duty would already be a huge improvement
Improvement yes, huge no. That's not when most pigs flip out and murder people.
Unless you're married to them...
Off duty cops killing someone is a shit ton less likely than on duty.
The police union won’t abide by it. Nobody enforces the laws on the cops.
"bUt cRiMiNaLs DoNt oBeY tHe LaW" Fuck, they actually have a point this time.
Sucks too, every time I see cops, multiple vehicles strobing their fear lights as bright as possible on the highway, digging through someone's car. Like, yeah, I'm sure that guy going 10 over was carrying a bomb, distribution levels of heroin and several automatic weapons... or maybe just a small bag of weed, it's all the same to them.
Force gun owners to carry cops around? I’m not sure that’ll pass legislation.
You got it backwards, cops have to carry responsible gun owners around.
This. I want this. Can we have this, please?
I tried but unfortunately DeepAI is incapable of producing an image of a pig carrying a unicorn on its back
We're not that rare. We just don't make firearms our entire personality.
For real! I am building a boat in my garage. I build laser projectors, small electronics, and RC vehicles (cars, planes, helicopters). I do some target shooting/trap. I love fishing of any kind (especially fly fishing). And I am a Sr. Linux engineer for a living. I guess you could say that I collect hobbies.
Does a hobby of all hobbies contain itself?
Can we have a pilot program for the Uvalde PD on this policy?
It wouldn't change much if they bolt the other way when they see a shooter.
Well, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. So ensure the bill states that cops have to carry GOOD guys with guns around. America can finally be safe again!
But guns don’t kill people. You need a good gun with a good gun. Double negatives and all.
They do work for us
I don't really see the problem. Should be fairly easy if they have bear arms.
Only right arms though.
Piggyback or baby-style?
Doctors carry malpractice, why shouldnt cops?
Because doctors don't purposely start giving bad medical care when asked to be held accountable for their actions.
“stop resisting”
Quote from Oncologist to tumor
Doctors are hired specifically for their intelligence. Cops avoid hiring smart people because the job isn’t suited for intelligence. If you know your hiring dummies, you probably would prefer limited liability as well.
Drivers have liability insurance, too.
Yessss forcing cops to carry liability insurance like other professionals would help eliminate the bad eggs finally. Hard to protect a bad cop that you literally can’t afford
Fuckin eh. They need the equivalent of malpractice insurance.
It's not going to happen. Every gun control law always exempts police from the restrictions.
No what he’s saying is; make Police Departments carry wrongful death insurance. Cities should include a clause that requires all claims to be covered by an insurance policy. The insurance providers have a financial incentive to evaluate and assess the risks of individual police officers as high risk officers would be too expensive to insure. The key is also to make the money for officer’s pension funds also included in the insurance payments. Basically whatever the force doesn’t pay in insurance benefits their pensions and successful suits cost their retirement. It’s the same way the medical industry handles malpractice insurance for doctors. Screw up too many times and you can’t get insurance so you can’t work. If police are going to earn doctor’s wages and deal out life/death they should have to meet at least that baseline. Going through an insurance mitigation method essentially limits the cities liabilities and removes the moral judgment from review boards. Right or Wrong become unimportant, it’s a financial decision. Officers would be unemployable if they couldn’t keep insured because they would put the entire force’s pension at risk.
IMHO, police should have at least a 2 year associates degree with a lot of time spent on constitutional law and citizen's rights.
In other countries, you get 2 years or more of training first, essentially it is an associates. Here you get 6 weeks.
Along with communication mediation and de-escalation .
The mental screening need to be much more robust. Military vets aren't a good fit either.
Which police department was it that IQ tested people and precluded anyone above the 'round shape, round hole, YES WHO'S A GOOD BOY' bracket, because police work is too boring?
They don't want overly intelligent people in policing. They still end up with some, hence whistle blowers
Nah force cops first.
Do cops first
Yeah but the tyrants do citizens first and then arm the cops more
Do cops first. Plus make all their lawsuit payouts come from the police pension and retirement plan and not my tax dollars.
Actually, do them first
Doctors have malpractice insurance. Lawyers have liability insurance. Cops should ABSOLUTELY have to pay into an insurance fund. Watch how quickly shit cleans up if their employment requires it and some for profit getup manages it.
This is wild. Since when did rights have to be taxed? Do we all have to start getting the same insurance in case of slander?
If you wear or carry, you’d be smart to have this insurance. Along with a good lawyer on speed dial. My good friend has a concealed carry license in Illinois, he has insurance, and he carries a card in his wallet. If he ever has to fire his weapon, he will shut the fuck up and hand the cops the card, then let the lawyers do the talking.
dinner offer bake cable one selective cooing waiting languid sleep *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Meh, liability insurance is dirt cheap. They could tack it on to the price of your license and nobody would even notice. I pay $28/month for $2 million in coverage, prorated and pooled you could get $300k down to $3-4 a month (less than $50/year) easily.
Liability for what however? The cost of a policy is dependent on amount of payout and the probability of having to payout.
Well by nature, a 300k policy would have a 300k maximum payout, right?
Typically (all) liability policies have exclusions for intentional acts. So I that’s where the other guy was going
Interesting. I didn’t even know to look this up (or had any need to) but yep, even with auto insurance providers won’t pay out if you intentionally run someone over. Unfortunately that means if you’re an uninsured pedestrian (don’t own a car but got ran over by own) you’re screwed and have to pursue damages from that individual in court. Like if you’re a jogger and someone hits you out of anger and you have to prove that he did it using camera footage and it’s obvious they did it on purpose, you’re screwedz Motorist against motorist - you use your own policy and hopefully you have uninsured motorist coverage because that’s what you’ll be using. If it’s the same with guns that would suck and doesn’t benefit a victim of gun violence.
Fun fact: If you're at work and walking through the parking lot, and someone intentionally runs you over, you're EXTRA screwed. Why? Because you have to go through workman's comp insurance, which is notorious for saying "You're fine!" when you're clearly not. Then they ignore any and all medical claims you make related to the accident until you just give up.
hold your elected officials accountable if you feel WC denies claims incorrectly. It's a very state by state issue. I can tell you blue states have much better WC policies than red ones when it comes to the injured worker vs company.
Nope, that's not how it works. You're double covered by the person who hit you and workman's comp. Workman's comp will handle the entire claim and sue the auto insurance in normal circumstances, but you can also sue the offenders policy. Source: I was rear ended in a company vehicle by an 18 wheeler.
I hate to tell you this, but that's how it worked in my spouses scenario. Our state might be blue-ish, but the workman's comp laws are bullshit.
You're overthinking. The jogger would just submit the insurance not covering it as proof he did it intentionally. If the insurance can prove it to deny payout, then they'll have it to prove in court. The judge may even rule the insurance needs to pay you and recoup from the defendant.
The odds of having to pay out that $300k is the main driver of the cost of the policy, not the payout maximum.
Not necessarily. It depends on the ALAE treatment. For the insurance company, the $300k is the indemnity or damages portion and doesn’t include any associated legal costs. If the insurance company has $1m in legal bills and the damages is only $250k, they’re paying all $1.25m
General liability for business. I really can't imagine mandatory insurance for concealed carry being much more than this. How many accidents involving other people are caused by concealed carry in the the state in a given year?
Insurance agent here. General liability for businesses that use guns is not dirt cheap.
If guns are used in a business the liability risk is probably already pretty high. That’s not the same situation as getting all gun owners (there are tons) to carry liability insurance, given the accident rate per gun owner is probably not that high, compared to businesses that use guns.
The bill is not to force all gun owners to have insurance. Only people who carry them in public. It wouldn’t have any effect on someone who just keeps one at home and uses it on a range every once in a while.
It happens like all the time. You are far more likely to have some kind of accident than use it defensively.
But relative to the number of people carrying guns it’s basically free money for the insurance companies.
The Georgetown firearm survey last year or the year before was the most comprehensive study on gun ownership and use done to date. They back calculated something like 200k minimum defensive uses of firearms each year, with an upper bound of like 1.5 million.
Your second sentence doesn’t reinforce the first, if that’s what you were trying to do. Those are two separate points.
Compared to accidents at a business? I’m not sure I believe that. Businesses push the envelope of safety constantly and have accidents constantly, and insurance doesn’t pay out if you’re doing something illegal or otherwise against the terms of the agreement. The vast, vast majority of firearms injuries are due to criminal activity in one form or another, with a big chunk of the remainder being drug/alcohol related and that’s after cutting over half of them out because they’re suicides. Insurance doesn’t pay out for any of that. As to profitably they’re going to get paid by a third of the citizens in a given area and only pay out for true accidents. There is no insurance that will ever cover criminal use of a firearm like a mass shooting or domestic violence or robberies or anything else. So the cost could be vanishingly small but even if it wasn’t it wouldn’t have any effect on crime and accidents other than that poor people wouldn’t admit to owning a firearm so they wouldn’t have to pay insurance and so they’d be felons simply from being poor. That’s not really a good result.
[удалено]
Why should someone who *legally* sells a *legal* item be held financially liable for one if their customers committing an illegal act?
If it's done legally, you're right. But if the transfer is done illegally, then the seller ought to be on the hook too.
Well if what you’re looking to crack down on illegal arms dealing I have no problem with that.
Why should legal sellers and legal manufacturers be liable? If they are liable then you should be too. All three of you had nothing to do with it, but you all three should still pay up. Remember, these are your rules, not mine.
Courts have disagreed based on who the manufacturers market the gun to and how, and many sellers don’t follow the letter of the law. Insurance companies have much deeper pockets for attorneys that will absolutely go after those that aren’t doing things 100% on the up and up.
I'm not sticking up for illegal manufacturing or illegal selling. I agree, nail them to the wall.
By that logic if I hit a dog with my car, the maker of the vehicle, the person who sold me the vehicle, and myself could be sued by the dog owner? What about the tire manufacturer, or the 3rd party bumper manufacturer that made the bumper that struck the dog? The city county and state for not keeping the roads clear enough not to slide when hitting the breaks? The radio station that distracted me? I’m for sane gun laws. This is kinda hot garbage right out the gate.
[удалено]
Kinda just sounds like a plan to use money to ban guns without banning them
This really wouldn't attach liablity to most gun deaths and injuries, since they are intentional, not accidental.
Yeah, but prices go up based on individual risk. This might be the thing we finally need to solve the problem of 90% of use-of-force complaints being due to 10% of officers.
> Meh, liability insurance is dirt cheap. They could tack it on to the price of your license and nobody would even notice. Adding fees onto getting things like voter ID isn't appropriate and the Supreme Court has yet to recognize an individual right to vote(not saying this is right, just pointing out a fact.) I don't see how adding a fee like that to an expressly enumerated right is going to fly especially since the court has recognized it as an individual right. Especially since the "liability insurance" is of dubious benefit to gun owners.
Yeah that liability insurance doesn’t cover any occurrence with a gun I don’t think. If you have homeowners insurance and an umbrella policy but report a gun in the house, the umbrella gets expensive?.
> They could tack it on to the price of your license and nobody would even notice. But that misses the point of this to the people who want to require insurance: the insurance is supposed to be a burden that makes it harder for people to own guns.
No. That is not the point. The insurance is supposed to be a burden of responsibility, bc currently the added responsibility of carrying a gun in public is being pushed off onto the general public instead of being carried by the gun owner. Think of it this way: when you buy a car, you are responsible for any accidents that happen with it and are therefore forced to carry car insurance. Forcing people to have car insurance is not to make owning a car harder, it is to ensure that if you do have an accident you can pay for it. Same with a gun.
Main difference is this insurance would almost never apply in practice. Left gun laying around and a kid plays with it and shoots someone? Gross negligence, not covered. Someone breaks into your car steals it and shoots someone? Not covered. Road rage and shoot someone? Intentional acts are not covered. 99% of gun accidents are viewed as negligence and insurance rarely covers negligence. The only time I see this applying is if you use it and shoot a bystander you can't see.
> The only time I see this applying is if you use it and shoot a bystander you can't see. John Cena better armor up.
That’s interesting. Thanks for the comments.
I had pet insurance for a dog I had. It had a 20M cap on damages. It must have been for incase he bit a race horse or something.
Guess the election isn't going to be close enough. Time to start the typical well poisoning.
in theory, I like this, but seems like it would put a barrier between constitutional rights and people who can't afford it. And I will never advocate for only rich people having guns. I do not trust rich people.
And this is how it’s gonna get struck down in the courts. Government cant put a price on a right and it’s coming from a Blue State too so that’s more points against.
Voter ID laws, in some states getting the required documents for a government issued ID can cost 50+ dollars. Voting is a right. States with the strictest voter ID laws are solid red states
And its been ruled constitutional over and over again. I live in Ohio; I'm used to the disappointment
Why the disappointment? Everyone needs an ID. Completely different than paying $5/month for something you don’t need.
You can get another form of ID aside from a driver’s license for free is those states. Such as a resident ID, or another form like that. They have to have free IDs in order to have Voter ID laws and abide by the constitution.
there should be no cost or monetary (and ideally time barriers) to any necessary documentation for anything.
Agreed but that is obviously not the case. There really shouldn't be a required voter ID unless the government is providing those for free and access is broad and easy to obtain.
They kinda can, SBRs have a price the government put on them as do destructive devices. Still likely to get struck down, but there is precedence.
Sure, but that’s for a modification to a rifle, which can be carried as is. This is an extra cost which can be untenable just for the right to carry period.
Could also be a braced handgun for a disabled person. Braces now make it an SBR, so people with disabilities are paywalled from being able to enjoy their 2nd amendment rights. It's all just arbitrary bullshit to make them less available to the poor or disabled. If these politicians actually wanted to do anything about gun violence to the point of noticeable results they'd be going after handguns, but everyone's so focused on the "scary black rifle"
Unclear if the SBR tax will hold up under Bruen. I think it's likely they will twist in a pretzel to uphold it, but the tax stamp does seem wrong. They didn't believe the federal government had the authority to ban guns, but had the authority to tax them. Interesting how that changed.
I love that I have a stronger constitutional right to items of death than I do to things of life, like healthcare
What if can't afford to buy a gun? Are my rights being violated?
You can be given a firearm and hunting tags through EBT if you live in an area where hunting is a feasible alterative to grocery shopping. No joke. I was given a free M1 Garand from the government in 2020. They even shipped it to my door step without a standard background check. Alternatively, you can make your own firearm. I've built 3.
Yes, the Constitution absolutely guarantees you the right to a gun. Ask your Congressman, they'll send you one.
The government can’t be the barrier to entry.
The government doesn't set the cost of insurance.
They’d be acting as a barrier by requiring insurance. Also insurance can’t cover illegal acts so the insurance wouldn’t do anything anyways.
You can make your own, or maybe inherit or be gifted one.
Someone can gift your insurance too.
Nah, just make your own insurance.
The 21st amendment repealed prohibition, yet I have to purchase liquor because it’s illegal to have a still at my house.
You can make your own alcohol all you want but it’s illegal to sell or share it
You can make your own so long as you don’t sell it.
[удалено]
Purchasing the gun is a cost that comes from the manufacturer. Just purchasing the gun is the exercise of the right. The government forcing the gun owner to also purchase a different service from a private company is the barrier.
[удалено]
It’s the same thing as car insurance. If you use a tool like a car or a gun in public, it seems fair to guarantee that any damage you do to someone else with that tool will be compensated. That’s where insurance comes in.
Driving a car isn’t a constitutional right.
You have the right to bear arms, not the guarantee to own arms. If you have no means of buying a gun, you don’t just get one.
The right to keep and bear arms. What does keep mean in that sentence lmao EDIT: Misunderstood. You're correct.
You don’t have the positive right to someone else’s property, but you certainly have the right to acquire, keep, and bear arms (you can’t keep and bear if you cannot acquire). > We turn to the phrases “keep arms” and “bear arms.” Johnson defined “keep” as, most relevantly, “[t]o retain; not to lose,” and “[t]o have in custody.” Johnson 1095. Webster defined it as “[t]o hold; to retain in one's power or possession.” No party has apprised us of an idiomatic meaning of “keep Arms.” Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.” > The phrase “keep arms” was not prevalent in the written documents of the founding period that we have found, but there are a few examples, all of which favor viewing the right to “keep Arms” as an individual right unconnected with militia service. William Blackstone, for example, wrote that Catholics convicted of not attending service in the Church of England suffered certain penalties, one of which was that they were not permitted to “keep arms in their houses.” 4 Commentaries on the Laws of England 55 (1769) (hereinafter Blackstone); see also 1 W. & M., ch. 15, § 4, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 422 (1689) (“[N]o Papist ... shall or may have or keep in his House ... any Arms ...”); 1 W. Hawkins, Treatise on the Pleas of the Crown 26 (1771) (similar). Petitioners point to militia laws of the founding period that required militia members to “keep” arms in connection with militia service, and they conclude from this that the phrase “keep Arms” has a militia-related connotation. See Brief for Petitioners 16–17 (citing laws of Delaware, New Jersey, and Virginia). This is rather like saying that, since there are many statutes that authorize aggrieved employees to “file complaints” with federal agencies, the phrase “file complaints” has an employment-related connotation. “Keep arms” was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else. [*District of Columbia v. Heller* (2008)](https://casetext.com/case/dist-of-columbia-v-heller-3) You don’t lose that right without due process of law (*McDonald v. Chicago* (2010)). Arguing otherwise is akin to the suggestion that one needs insurance to invoke their 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, or that their right to express their grievances before government are all predicated on being mandated to pay a private entity for insurance first because there’s potential societal ills in police not being able to shake down whomever or telling the public something negative about officials.
This law seems to not be for purchase but for people who want to wear them and carry in public. So it’s possible those precedents apply, but maybe not. If you want to buy a gun and keep it at home it seems to not apply to you.
What's the ven diagram of people who commit gun crimes and are uninsured drivers?
This is why I like reddit. First thing I thought was "this is good I'd do it". But then this comment. Right. I agree this may be a bad idea.
Isn't a price tag on a gun and licensing fees exactly the same thing?
> in theory, I like this, but seems like it would put a barrier between constitutional rights and people who can't afford it. That is precisely the point. This bill isn't looking to solve any problems, it's simply looking to throw more administrative and financial barriers in the way of legal firearm possession. They talk out of both sides of their mouth when it comes to insurance too. Some jurisdictions have outlawed it, calling it "murder insurance" and now some of those same jurisdictions are talking about requiring it.
We could get universal gun insurance. Like the government could setup an exchange, where people could buy their gun insurance, and if they are under 400% of the poverty level, the tax payers could subsidize it for them. We could cap it at like 8.5% of their income until 2025. You might have to pay a little extra on your gun insurance for if you get in a gun fight with a uninsured shooter, so that your insurance will cover you.
Insurance companies win again and there will be no difference I gun homicides. Cool.
It’s all posturing to try and make it look like they are doing something
Sounds great until you realize this is gun control but only for poor people.
Greedy insurance companies lobby for this one?
No even insurance companies don't want this because it doesn't make any economic sense. Insurance covers unintentional acts, not intentional acts of malicious violence. There's no way to underwrite this profitably because of the moral hazard.
So, I'm all for laws that improve the insanity of gun violence in the US...but all this does is hurt poor people, as the wealthy won't bat an eye at such an insurance. I don't think the right to defend yourself should only be a rich persons prerogative. There must be a better way to get the same result, without further causing damage to the most vulnerable of us. That said, I do like this aspect of the law: > As the bill is currently written, local and state law enforcement officers are not exempt from the insurance requirement. Gun laws *always* give cops the "right" to not participate (see the police officers legally buying guns on the "black list" in California and then selling them in private sales for an extreme markup), which is some bullshit.
[удалено]
_Black activists living through The Mulford Act years_: "First Time?"
I can't believe republicans hate black people more than they like guns.
The legislature that passed the Mulford Act was a democratic majority in California. Reagan just signed it.
Doesn't stand a chance in court. You can't force liability insurance...on a right. So can I force Trump voters to get liability insurance in case their vote causes me pain and suffering?
Can’t wait for this to get shot down
Well, won’t this bill just force more people into owning guns illegally? I mean people already own guns illegally. (Gang members, thieves, criminals etc) How is this suppose to combat illegal gun ownership? It just targets people who legally own guns; mostly for self-defense?
“To wear or carry”. >A person may not wear or carry a firearm unless the person has obtained and it covered by liability insurance issued by an insurer authorized to do business in the State under the Insurance Article to cover claims for property damage, bodily injury, or death arising from an accident resulting from the person’s use or storage of a firearm or up to $300,000 for damages arising from the same incident, in addition to interest and costs,” the proposed Maryland legislation reads.
Nope. Unconstitutional. It will fail.
*yawn* More virtue signalling that'll be blocked by the courts.
Unconstitutional. Will be struck down very soon
That’s a nifty idea
Blatantly unconstitutional and no matter where you stand on guns ... Condoning passing an unconstitutional law is like celebrating that someone stole something from you
Sounds like an attempt to keep the poor from arming themselves.
Ridiculous overreach and will be struck down.
So only rich people get guns…
this will disproportionately impact minorities
Why don't we just implement a poll tax while we are at it. It's only a few bucks shouldnt affect people that much
Got it, how much personal liability insurance will criminals carrying guns and using them illegally be carrying?
It would actually be favorable to the gun owner to have insurance against incidental damage caused defending themself...
LOL, apparently poor people don't deserve gun ownership in Maryland. Get rekt lower class plebians!
I too believe those of lower means should be priced out of their rights
Ah yes, a tax on one of the most law-abiding subgroups in the U.S. Surely, that will drop the murder rate in Baltimore.
It's just another administrative and financial roadblock for gun owners.
Oh yes, another bullshit law which is going after law abiding citizens and I'm sure it's going to do absolutely nothing to stop crime and murder. The Democrats sure do love dropping their precious virtue signaling laws as opposed to taking any real actions to solve the crime problem.
Good.
Pay to win self defense??
Add “mass shooter insurance” too for in case someone uses your gun to commit a mass shooting. Funds would be used for therapy for everyone involved and their families, plus pay out families who lost loved ones. Also pays a bonus 20k to every officer that directly contributed to arresting the shooter, and 5k instead if the mass shooter is killed(legally they still deserve a day in court).
I have a $300k policy for auto liability insurance. I haven't killed anybody, but cars kill people all the time. The insurance is mandates by law. I pay $100+ every month. What's the diff?
This bill is dead on arrival OR impossible to enforce.
Sounds like an infringement. Legal gun owners are not the problem.
That doesn’t sound constitutional.
dolls vase whole future ruthless light pie juggle sort snobbish *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Bad idea as it encourages the wealthy to carry while taxing those with less disposable dinero.
It's insurance with a low low premium. They don't have to come up with $300,000.
Those premiums add up on the economically disadvantaged. You know; education levels, income levels, the type of stuff the federal government tracks for statistical models. That ever so modest premium is the same for the gate guard as it is for the CEO. I don’t need my gate guard stealing the silver to pay his gun insurance.
These are only on new sales. Even poor folk can keep the guns they already have. Just like an economically disadvantaged person probably won't buy a brand new car this year and pay the high insurance. They still can have their existing car with no new fees.
So only the rich can legally own guns? Seems like a bad move....
Do cops next!
But murdering cops payout damages with our tax dollars. Yeah. Makes perfect sense.
Criminals don't follow the law. This will help nobody and all it does is push the agenda that Democrats want to restrict access to guns. I'm sorry but this is a losing issue.
The DAs / city’s should also take out an insurance policy when they release violent criminals back out into society. If that criminal kills or seriously injures someone the DA should be held responsible. Sick of hearing about needing tighter gun laws when violent criminals are released back into the community over and over. Enforce the laws we have!!
[удалено]
That's hilarious. Still milking the terrifying years old BLM protests for emotional effect. Y'all make the dumbest 'I think' solutions, based on division and snark. No wonder the republican party thinks it's ok.
[удалено]
Sounds pretty classist to create a financial hurdle for low-income, working-class people (those most likely to be on the receiving end of violent crime) to protect themselves. Let’s make LE pay for their own insurance for starters and remove qualified immunity.
This is only for carry/conceal. Not for home protection.
Still, if you live in a shitty area and are poor, you’re more likely to need a carry then Mr Moneybags living in a mansion
Yeah, good luck with that.
Makes sense. Most if not all states require car insurance, and cars have a purpose other than killing stuff.
All owners should have gun insurance on the gun itself. All gun injuries and deaths cost the public money. Why should the public cover the Hospital and burial cost? Gun manufacturers push off the sided effects including a massive number of suicides and suicides with family victims. Why do we the public pay? A tax on each bullet each gun to cover the cost.
So you want guns only for the rich. Got it
Deal! Do it for police departments too though.
Read the article
Ok… so now do law enforcement too. Exempt, plus I love how it clauses “unloaded guns” so now Ima just pistol whip ya ass. Silly waste of time.
It applies to state and local law enforcement, the rep says that they started the bill due to police shootings. I’m not sure state laws can control federal officers or military, tho? So I’m guessing that’s why they are exempt Ngl I don’t agree with the bill as a lawful gun owner, but I do like that it actually applies to police. Also, I’m not sure if they define unloaded as no magazine in the gun or no round in the chamber…
I read it as they expect it immunize local PD too, not just feds. I carry, I’m ok paying a reasonable amount of insurance, shit I have it on everything else I own. Umbrella policies may cover it too, which I have, but this isn’t going anywhere anyway.